Did review oc ? Nb + ram oc?
Printable View
Did review oc ? Nb + ram oc?
Oh, really? You say so... :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Probably it's more like 0.75*8 or so.
You just keep saying lies, here, i wonder what you will say on 12 octomber.
The numbers in the post written by Olivon are correct, let say 5% more or less.
The sad thing is that because BD is more or less a fail Piledriver will be to.
And so we are finished with AMD until 2013 when 3 generation BD arrives.
The even more stupid thing is that Thuban 8 core design, more L3 cache, faster IMC, speed like BD, would have done it better i think , in same die size, same overclocking capabilities( i mean all Thubans can do 4.2-4.3Ghz 24/7 on 45nm, on 32nm would have do 4.5-4.7ghz 24.7), and may be even with better yelds than BD. Llano is an exception because it's APU.
Well that kinda sucks? :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
But the post above mine is wording of trolls imo.
If you took 0.8 from cinebench results - you forgot the turbo frequency impact when calculating multiprocessor speedup.Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
Stop spreading bullsh1t... I have thuban ;)Quote:
i mean all Thubans can do 4.2-4.3Ghz 24/7 on 45nm, on 32nm would have do 4.5-4.7ghz 24.7
You say so :). Well it will be hard times for AMD fans to accept that they were lied all the year and that BD is a fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Many people defended and made excuses for BD all the summer.
JF AMD keep giving false hopes. Nobody had the guts to tell the truth.
I am let's say more of am Intel fan. But i really want BD to crush a little SB to have something new on market, to have lower prices from Intel.
Intel can because of that release cpu's whenever he wants, what he wants, at what price wants.
We can all say thank you to AMD to their "strong competition".
I was talking about overall performance, without TURBO wich anyway doesn't count in all multithread aplications.Quote:
If you took 0.8 from cinebench results - you forgot the turbo frequency impact when calculating multiprocessor speedup.
Looking at those c10 and c11.5 numbers from 8150 and 1100T,all i want to know is how in the world is interlagos with same or less clockspeed going to have 35% higher throughput in legacy fp code?! AMD claims it can do 50% more SP flops then MC,even in legacy code. With what magic?
hey Lee,have you gotten it 8 cores stable at ?GHz yet? and are you using an air cooler? i know its only been a few hoursQuote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
but im very curious as to how it goes:D
thanks Lee for the quick update,it looks like BD will be so much fun and plenty powerful,and we will have good time ahead:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
How is BD a "fail?"Quote:
Well it will be hard times for AMD fans to accept that they were lied all the year and that BD is a fail.
Big surprise there.Quote:
I am let's say more of am Intel fan.
lol wut? That is just so funny to me. How the heck do you toss in 2 more cores and more L3 and come up with the same size? And then you want more core speed and NB speed on top of that added complexity? I suppose you want a ruduced TDP to top it all off too amirite? Ill just get right on that. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by xdan
Also, more stuff from that other leak:
http://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/com..._gonna_say_it/
Quote:
Vithren 1 point 4 hours ago
Do tell, are all the leaks we have seen so far simply a part of a one, gigantic AMD fud campaign?
Quote:
primesuspect
No, they're sites who are capitalizing on pure rumor and hype traffic
(Sigh) Just six more days.
Thuban 6cores has 346mm^ and a TDP of 125W but on 45nm.Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGmA1987
On 32nm should have 240-260mm^, see Lynnfield 296mm^(45nm) -> and SB 216mm^ with IGP(32nm).
So it's quite posible that a Thuban with 8 cores and let sau 8MB L3 cache + 8MB L2 cache on 32nm to have 330-346mm^.
And the TDP why should be biger if the die size is the same, and may be the number of the tranzistors would be the same.
And if i remeber AMD launched a Phenom X4 960/965 at 140W TDP so what is the problem. Next revision will fix it.
The performance is more important.
Because an architecture of cpu's waited for 3-4 years, fails to beat the mainstream of Intel.Quote:
How is BD a "fail?"
They are no threat to even 2010 Intel hexa cores and now it's soon 2012.
Because AMD remains again in the back.
Because they had the performance of SB from january or even earlier, they delay 3-4 months and they couldn't do anything to improve much more the performance to at least equal SB 2600K.
Because marketing BD as an 8core is just lame to be equal to an intel quad.
I would have been less harsh if they would have called a quad with 8 threads.
Anyway i'm waisting my time trying to convince some hard AMD fans.
When IB cames, all FX 8XXX will fall under 200$, as Thuban when SB appeared.
So, we will be back with two generation as usually.
With their current 32nm they wouldn't be able to run 6 llano cores at 3GHz and stay under the 100W while having a decent yield.... Not sure how BD does, but the process issue also affect BD (less than llano). The fact that BD is competitive with intel fastest at the moment is alot more than what they had or what an hypotetical 8core llano would be able to do with the state of their process...Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
Why you just put Llano in comparision, Llano has 40% of the die GPU that's why it has that TDP, not to mention that doing GPU on SOI was wery hard. Llano problems will be much lighter on a cpu design without GPU.
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/...ze-580x241.jpg
I am pretty sure I don't need to explain how so many of your arguments are purely trying to stirr up some brown mud.Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
But anyway, myself like many in here are not in this thread to suck up to AMD regardless of how bad/good their product is but we are actually excited that they are putting something new in the market and we are looking at it with a critical eye.
I'm excited for Bulldozer, doesn't mean I am going to buy it. My money goes where performance is higher for my budget.
I suppose many will be dissapointed if Bulldozer won't beat i7 2600k but calling it a complete fail and making wild claims about bad future performance and what ifs from old processors as if they are facts, they are not facts, its your opinion. Bulldozer will be a fail for someone with a 3000$ budget, but if you are looking for an i5 2500k system, you will not be able to avoid comparing it to BD, and the later might end up a little bit better bang for buck.
All is relative.
i just imagine what would happen if they took 2 Llano chips and connected them together. 8 cores, dual gpu, and can run in less than 140W if they dont go all out. but also make them unlocked it could be quite a fun all-in-one chip for a not so insane price. but that also gives a pretty good idea of the clock limitations of stars cores. id also be willing to bet that overclocking such a chip would kill any motherboards VRMs. its quite clear the old architecture is getting too old. but i fear the IPC of BD is going to feel old way too quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by flyck
Because it is the Cpu that consumes the power budget, not the gpu. The gpu is actually very clean and extremely efficient. (it is a complete marvell... far exceeding the efficieny of SB or any other gpu we know at the moment). They need the high voltages to get yields on the cpu, not the gpu. While it probably would do better without the gpu in the yield department. BD is also suffering issues on the 32nm node. So doubling the llano cores, adding fast l3cache will explode on the current process.... Currently having 50W for 4cores@2,6GHz with proper yields is pushing it for llano.... try double that, add cache and 1,5Ghz and see where that would get you. (most likely to a nuclair generator as power supply..).Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
I am not talking about the possibilities on a good working process, because that would affect BD also in a positive way.
wow, if is it right, 5 GHz with only 1.45V...! With a bit luck I could get 5.2 GHz 1.5V :)
Talking about 24/7, how does GF's 32nm process cope with voltage? I see llano APUs everywhere at 3.6 ghz and north of 1.4v, near 1.5v for those clocks... anyway, BD will be made on the same process, how durable would that be? 5+ ghz on air is cool and a nice sign too, but is it realistic for 24/7 use at such high voltages, even with under control temps? Dunno, 1.5v seems too high for that process... yeah, AMD's (now GF) SOI 45nm is a tank when coping with voltage, but what about their 32nm? Any ideas on this based on current llano chips?
Having said this, things are looking good, really good. 6 more days! I am already impressed. 4.5 ghz 24/7 at reasonable voltages seem to be completely possible! It games well! You could just take my money now AMD :D
Gaming benchmarks look pretty good and to me personally that's all
I really care about. Can't wait for BD!! :yepp:
6 days. just 6 more days... oh someone let me pre-order it so i can do other things with my life!
How do you know that it's the CPU and not the GPU that consumes the power budget? Besides, the silicon and design could be limited by the compatibility with the GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by flyck
A Phenom II X6 at 32nm would be almost half the size of a Thuban if caches scales as good as cores when shrinking the process. BD must significantly outperform Thuban to justify this change in architecture.
run a cpu only benchmarkQuote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
run a gpu only benchmark
run both
the power increase running a gpu only benchmark is like 20w increase, the cpu only is like 60w increase, and both is like 65w increase
these numbers are from memory and not to be considered accurate.
Well, there is a similar one in the Opt. Guide - one that also shows one FMAC unit on Pipe 0 and one on Pipe 1, so no separate pipes (and ports) for the FMUL and FADD units in a given FMAC. It means independent FADD and FMUL operations cannot be started per cycle per FMAC. JF also wrote in a blog that it's FADD or FMUL or FMA, not (FADD and FMUL) or FMA.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
AFAIK K10's FPU is capable of it and SB definitely can do it. I don't know how much it impacts performance, though.
nice,looking forward to your NB findings.BD is going to be a fun OCing chip for sure:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd